# Government announces plans for stricter regulations



## thechasm442

We knew this was coming but still, not good.

FDA releases proposed e-cigarette regulations - CNN.com


----------



## Tgs679

More regulation, just what the US needs. (Heavy sarcasm)


----------



## TonyBrooklyn

Just a question of time before they try and regulate every aspect of our lives.


“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

― Edmund Burke


----------



## tnlawyer

Time to wipe the slate clean and start over me thinks.


----------



## JG5000

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Just a question of time before they try and regulate every aspect of our lives.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
> 
> ― Edmund Burke


True freedom is becoming more of an illusion every day.

In the US, it's like the illusion there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In Canada, something similar.

I digress : ) time to smoke a cigar!


----------



## Emperor Zurg

tnlawyer said:


> Time to wipe the slate clean and start over me thinks.


Unfortunately that's called 'Revolution' and it usually only happens when 'we the people' have nothing more to loose.
There is still much to loose in this country so I'd suggest grassroots action and voting while we still can.

Inevitably, it seems revolution comes to all nations because as Jefferson said...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
...but let's hope it doesn't in our (or our children's) lifetime because it's damn ugly.


----------



## tnlawyer

Emperor Zurg said:


> Unfortunately that's called 'Revolution' and it usually only happens when 'we the people' have nothing more to loose.
> There is still much to loose in this country so I'd suggest grassroots action and voting while we still can.
> 
> Inevitably, it seems revolution comes to all nations because as Jefferson said...
> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
> ...but let's hope it doesn't in our (or our children's) lifetime because it's damn ugly.


Agree it's a last resort, but I fear it may come to that before I'm 6 feet under. You have 3 boxes of tools which can be used to force change...the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box...meant to be used in that order.


----------



## TCBSmokes

thechasm442 said:


> We knew this was coming but still, not good.
> 
> FDA releases proposed e-cigarette regulations - CNN.com


Thanks for sharing.

I never expected to see a statement like this..

"Responsibly marketed and properly regulated, it is possible that e-cigarettes could benefit public health if they help significantly reduce the number of people who use conventional cigarettes and die of tobacco-related disease," Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in February.

because usually there is this..

Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, believes nicotine is highly addictive whether used in a regular cigarette or an e-cigarette.


----------



## Emperor Zurg

tnlawyer said:


> Agree it's a last resort, but I fear it may come to that before I'm 6 feet under. You have 3 boxes of tools which can be used to force change...the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box...meant to be used in that order.


Well I won't deny that the ballot box and jury box have already failed us and true to form, the increasingly oppressive government is trying to take the ammo box away from us. However, I think the real problem is 'we the people'. I thing nations end up with the governments they deserve. We have largely become a nation of self-absorbed idiots, morons and imbeciles these days. I think if you could hit crtl+alt+del and set the thing up brand new tomorrow with everybody's involvement, we'd end up with a far worse government than we have now.

[/politicalstuff]


----------



## tnlawyer

Emperor Zurg said:


> Well I won't deny that the ballot box and jury box have already failed us and true to form, the increasingly oppressive government is trying to take the ammo box away from us. However, I think the real problem is 'we the people'. I thing nations end up with the governments they deserve. We have largely become a nation of self-absorbed idiots, morons and imbeciles these days. I think if you could hit crtl+alt+del and set the thing up brand new tomorrow with everybody's involvement, we'd end up with a far worse government than we have now.
> 
> [/politicalstuff]


Very very true. Well said.


----------



## TCBSmokes

Here's the FDA's "proposal" details including on cigars, which is what I wanted to see (and you may, too). T.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-09491.pdf


----------



## Emperor Zurg

Reading thru all that gobblety-**** makes my head hurt.
From the sound of it, even pipe cleaners would be regulated by the FDA.

I'll have to slog thru it more after work.


----------



## ShaneG

So they are proposing marketing and regulations for all other tobacco products- ecigs, pipes, and cigars. They are considering a separate category for premium cigars which would be (see page 32) 
- long filler only 
- handmade
- over 10$ (after discounts etc; not MSRP)
- no tip or filter
- weigh more than 6lbs per 1000 
- must have real leaf wrapper and binder

They are asking for the following inputs from the public regarding cigars (p34)

• Is this proposed definition of "covered cigar" appropriate to capture those products that, because of how they are used, may have less of a public health impact than other types of cigars?
• Should long filler tobacco content be included as one of required elements of a "premium" cigar (excluded from the definition of a "covered cigar")? If so, what percentage of the tobacco contained in the cigar should be required to be long filler tobacco in order for the cigar to be considered "premium"?
• Is it appropriate to include the $10 price point in differentiating "premium" cigars from other cigars? Please provide any data or information that supports the selection of a $10 price point or, if you believe a different price point is more appropriate, that supports the selection of that price point.
• Should a volume/rate restriction (e.g., "is produced at a rate of no more than [insert number] units per minute") be included as one of required elements of a "premium" cigar (excluded from the definition of a "covered cigar")? If we were to include this restriction,
what should the rate be? How would FDA determine compliance with such a restriction?
• Is it appropriate to include the proposed weight restriction (6 pounds per 1000 units) in
differentiating "premium" cigars from other cigars?
• Would a different regulatory scheme for covered cigars, as defined here, or other category
of cigars adequately address the dangers of tobacco use by adults or the proven dangers associated with use of cigars (such as increased risk of several cancers even among those users who do not inhale, and risk associated with lower levels of use as discussed in section VII)?
• How should the fact that studies indicate that young adults likely prefer cigarillos, as opposed to traditional large cigars, affect FDA's decision about whether to regulate "premium" cigars?

And deciding wether to regulate or not these premium cigars


----------



## Tobias Lutz

ShaneG said:


> • Is it appropriate to include the $10 price point in differentiating "premium" cigars from other cigars? Please provide any data or information that supports the selection of a $10 price point or, if you believe a different price point is more appropriate, that supports the selection of that price point.


:frusty:


----------



## tnlawyer

ShaneG said:


> They are asking for the following inputs from the public regarding cigars (p34)


Here's my input...take your regulations and shove them up your ass.


----------



## TJB

Nice, lets regulate a fake cigarette with no evidence whatsoever that it is a "gateway" to tobacco products. But lets legalize marijuana which has been shown to be dangerous and abused and can lead to other drugs? Idiots. Educated imbeciles. So much regulation and more and more over-reach by the government.

Lucky that the Bundy rancher thing worked out peacefully because if shots were fired that would have started the next civil war and we would have washed the slate clean already!


----------



## TCBSmokes

@ShaneG. Thanks for plucking out the finer points re cigars. Looking it over, imho $10 sounds high, as almost all cigars I buy are for less than that each especially if purchased online, but are still considered "premium".

But regardless, I guess the important point is how that proposed differentiation (between premium and OTP) will impact the consumer. Is it taxation ? Is it availability? Is it marketing? Will only those $10+ cigars be viewable in a walk-in humidor (or available online) while the others are hidden from view? Of course, the whole picture needs to be known, but imho, solely based upon this differentiation by price-point, being as high as it is, will reinstate cigar-smoking to it's "elitist" status, while the "masses" go wanting. Or am I looking at it wrong?

Furthermore, want to keep cigars away from kids? Keep them All in one class but pull them from being sold anywhere but in a cigar store (or other legal-age establishments, such as liquor stores). Kids don 't frequent those, and if they did , would stand out like a sore thumb. Meanwhile, how many cigarillos get sold to kids along with a soft drink and a candy bar? Most reputable online retailers already avoid selling them but they are getting into e-cigarettes. I don't like this because they are re-blurring the lines cigar advocates have hung their hats on in terms of shielding cigars from the same regulation as cigarettes. T.


----------



## TCBSmokes

Just to get an idea of where a $10 cigar stands, in the single cigar category, out of 798 entries Famous lists only 56 (7%) at above $10. T.

Cigar Singles | Famous Smoke Shop


----------



## Emperor Zurg

TCBSmokes said:


> Meanwhile, how many cigarillos get sold to kids along with a soft drink and a candy bar? Most reputable online retailers already avoid selling them but they are getting into e-cigarettes. I don't like this because they are re-blurring the lines cigar advocates have hung their hats on in terms of shielding cigars from the same regulation as cigarettes. T.


That's a lot of the trouble. The gov't passes these (intrusive) laws (supposedly) to keep tobacco away from kids (I don't really buy that but I digress). They usually have a particular product they are trying to regulate i.e. 'flavored cigarettes'. So by and by they pass the damn law and *boom* you can't get flavored cigarettes anymore (well, neither can 'the children' so it's all good... right?). Well then the asshole cigarette company simply re-names their (albatross of a) product to 'little cigars' or 'cigarillos' in order to avoid the new regulation. Now, suddenly that same albatross is hung around OUR necks. So the gov't solution? ZOMG, LETS REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF ALL CIGARS!!!!!1!


----------



## TCBSmokes

Emperor Zurg said:


> That's a lot of the trouble. The gov't passes these (intrusive) laws (supposedly) to keep tobacco away from kids (I don't really buy that but I digress). They usually have a particular product they are trying to regulate i.e. 'flavored cigarettes'. So by and by they pass the damn law and *boom* you can't get flavored cigarettes anymore (well, neither can 'the children' so it's all good... right?). Well then the asshole cigarette company simply re-names their (albatross of a) product to 'little cigars' or 'cigarillos' in order to avoid the new regulation. Now, suddenly that same albatross is hung around OUR necks. So the gov't solution? ZOMG, LETS REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF ALL CIGARS!!!!!1!


EZ. Yeah, those guys started it all by poking the tiger with their bubble gum flavored smokes, etc. Speaking of, why is alcohol escaping the same scrutiny? I saw marshmallow vodka recently. Really? And how many people are harmed by second-hand smoke as compared to dwi's? Anyway, we could go on and on, but you are right, there is a groundswell attempt to "bubble-wrap" the world in the name of our kids. Here's an idea. How about just keeping an eye on them? T.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

TCBSmokes said:


> Anyway, we could go on and on, but you are right, there is a groundswell attempt to "bubble-wrap" the world in the name of our kids. Here's an idea. How about just keeping an eye on them? T.


This is where your logic went completely off the rails, Tom. Hell, too many people are incapable and/or unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, much less for their young 'uns. Banning everything "for the kids" is much more palatable than say... forced sterilizations :lol:


----------



## TCBSmokes

Tobias Lutz said:


> This is where your logic went completely off the rails, Tom. Hell, too many people are incapable and/or unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, much less for their young 'uns. Banning everything "for the kids" is much more palatable than say... forced sterilizations :lol:


Well, I know you're just kidding, but as you probably know, sterilization did occur here in NC and that was not right. Anyway, I'm gonna take a breather and listen to others chiming in while I attempt to settle down. Now, where are my damn smokes. lol. T.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

TCBSmokes said:


> Well, I know you're just kidding, but as you probably know, sterilization did occur here in NC and that was not right. Anyway, I'm gonna take a breather and listen to others chiming in. Now, where are my damn smokes. lol. T.


I'm aware of the case that I believe you're referring to, as there was a good bit of news surrounding them not too long ago where Raleigh finally got around to making some apologies. I was not as much making a joke as trying to actually demonstrate two possible extremes to which a government body might go in response to a society that refuses to exercise personal responsibility. The fact remains that citizens elect the folks who make these laws because on some level the populace prefers to abdicate their decisions and care to persons who sell themselves with the most superficial propaganda imaginable. At the end of the day, some of us might get very upset, but the voting majority continues to make its bed IMHO.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn

IMHO its all BS if the Govt really cared about you and i and everyone else.
They would just outlaw all tobacco and alcohol products.
_In this way they could protect us because we are too stupid to protect ourselves in their eyes._
But since they really could care less and only regulate things like this is because now they will find a way to tax it to death and line their pockets.
I must ask who do they think they are fooling?
The only answer i can come up with is in line three of my post!:brick:


----------



## Tasiac

The young adults prefer cigarillo's part made me chuckle. Sure, if im driving somewhere close by on a busy weekend i'll smoke a cigarillo. However, i would much rather smoke an average sized cigar with a decent RG. If we get to do a paper and pen voting process on weather we believe those statements are true or not i'll fill out all but the last, walk out with paper in hand, pull out a churchill, light the cigar, then light the paper. These are the reasons my wife says i'm a pain in the rear.


----------



## Nature

ShaneG said:


> - weigh more than 6lbs per 1000


This is the size of a typical Robusto. Coronas/Petite Coronas, and perhaps some lanceros would not be under the "premium" cigar heading.



TCBSmokes said:


> Just to get an idea of where a $10 cigar stands, in the single cigar category, out of 798 entries Famous lists only 56 (7%) at above $10. T.
> 
> Cigar Singles | Famous Smoke Shop


Don't you think they know this!? If a cigar needs to cost $10 to avoid some of these regulations, then many cigars will cost greater than $10. Higher prices, then the demand plummets. This is the regulators' intentions by design. Oh, and they may increase that cost every 2 years as deemed necessary.

This all just makes me mad!!


----------



## TCBSmokes

Nature said:


> This is the size of a typical Robusto. Coronas/Petite Coronas, and perhaps some lanceros would not be under the "premium" cigar heading.
> 
> Don't you think they know this!? If a cigar needs to cost $10 to avoid some of these regulations, then many cigars will cost greater than $10. Higher prices, then the demand plummets. This is the regulators' intentions by design. Oh, and they may increase that cost every 2 years as deemed necessary.
> 
> This all just makes me mad!!


All good points. Time to step up my "hoarding".

Now let's see, @ about 180 cigars a year and a 30 yr life expectancy, about a 5400 cigar supply ought to do me, minus the appx. 150 I already have, = "only" 5250 more needed, @ avg. $7 per, = $35,750. Oh boy, let's see, if I buy twice as much, $71,500, and sell half on WTS (which the FDA could outlaw eventually)at double the cost after prices rise, I'll cover the other half "for free". There's a plan. T.


----------



## SeanTheEvans

What people are not realizing is that we should be commenting to the government about this. These exact things we're talking about.
The price IS set too high
The weight limit DOESN'T make sense

and if we would each send in a relevant and concrete example, then we could complain after things go amuck, but until we do our part (which it is literally asking us to do), then I'm not sure how much we can legitimately complain about it.

Don't get me wrong, this is a crock of :BS, but it's being done because some people are yelling about it and DO WANT CHANGE. We need to show that we are not as small a minority as they think, and that WE WILL PUSH BACK. They are requesting us to, so I'm not sure how much more of an invite we'll ever get to give our opinions to those who are going to make the laws.


----------



## TCBSmokes

SeanTheEvans said:


> What people are not realizing is that we should be commenting to the government about this. These exact things we're talking about.
> *The price IS set too high
> The weight limit DOESN'T make sense*
> 
> and if we would each send in a relevant and concrete example, then we could complain after things go amuck, but until we do our part (which it is literally asking us to do), then I'm not sure how much we can legitimately complain about it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this is a crock of :BS, but it's being done because some people are yelling about it and DO WANT CHANGE. We need to show that we are not as small a minority as they think, and that WE WILL PUSH BACK. They are requesting us to, so I'm not sure how much more of an invite we'll ever get to give our opinions to those who are going to make the laws.


I agree now on the weight limit too, because as @Nature points out, a lot of smaller vitolas will be heaped onto the OTP pile that don't belong there imho, such as for instance, the La Duena petite robusto, or Cain F Habano Nub, as I'm willing to bet that no 16 yr old is going to want anything to do with either of those.

And I'm beginning to think more and more that sequestering all cigar sales to cigar stores only would largely nip the whole sale-to-minors thing in the bud, but that would only accomplish part of their stated final objective, which is to abolish all smoking of any kind completely. T. ps.. I will be sending in my thoughts. Once I get them sorted.


----------



## TCBSmokes

Of course, it should be no surprise to anyone that smoking opponents would become deeply offended by the idea of exempting premium cigars in any way shape or form, and one at least, already has.

Excerpt below is from: After Inexcusably Long Delay, FDA Takes First Step to Regulate E-Cigarettes and Cigars - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids

"It is deeply disturbing that FDA has not asserted jurisdiction over so-called premium cigars and instead has just asked for comment on whether premium cigars should be included or entirely exempted. All cigars have been shown to cause disease. There is no justifiable public health rationale for exempting any category of cigars. This approach sets a terrible precedent, is unnecessary and should be dropped from the final rule. The FDA should have the authority to regulate all tobacco products to protect public health, and it has the flexibility to determine which regulations should apply to each category of products."

Sounds like they may need to change their name to TobaccoFreeKids...and All Adults, Too. Which, in the end, appears to be the real end-game of many of these purportedly child-safety-minded groups.


----------



## Pj201

God I'm so sick of the self righteous humans that try to regulate and tax my vices and pleasures in the name of what's good. I wish each and everyone of them would get a huge life event that would distract/harm them.
I know it's harsh, but how far can we be pushed?:hurt:


----------



## Stinky

We have an advocate fighting for cigar enthusiasts. *Cigar Rights of America*. I support *CRA *and encourage every cigar smoker to join. 
*
http://www.cigarrights.org/main.php]CRA - Cigar Rights of America | Home *

*CRA *is the only 'consumer' based organization open for everyone to join. *CRA* works together with a number of trade associations including *IPCPR*, *CAA*, *TAA*, etc. in national and local lobbing efforts. *CRA *needs a million members! We all need to join, take action, contact your local & national representatives. *CRA *makes it easy to contact your state & national representatives right there on their web site.

*CRA *needs our support. We need to take action and flood our politicians 'in-boxes' with a million e-mails & letters. Stand up and be counted!


----------



## Stinky




----------



## gtechva

It is already illegal to sell tobacco products to kids. That just shows this is crap. A bunch of holier-than-thous wanting to tell me what vices, habits, hobbies I should have. Tobacco is the popular thing to be against. Every time they gain ground they can celebrate with a drink. But I'm not trying to outlaw their drink. The whole aspect of trying to decide which tobacco to regulate/out-law is also stupid. As has been said, if any tobacco needs to be outlawed, or regulated/taxed into extinction, then it all does. I don't care for mint flavored candy. Let's outlaw it because too much candy is bad for you. I do like Snickers candy bars. They have peanuts in them which makes them a health food and should be left alone. BS. If it's cigarettes today, it will be machine made cigars tomorrow, and the rest the next day. In the mean time, as someone else has commented, if $10 sticks are protected, d near all of them will cost $10. I personally can't afford those. So I will be out of luck but the more fortunate will still have their freedom. They don't want to go after everyone at once. Every individual thing they go after, will have some people won't care because it doesn't effect them. It might next time and it will eventually if it continues. It is not the government's job to protect me from me. I'm a big boy and I take responsibility for my decisions. It's not Krispy-Kreme and Duncan's fault I'm overweight. That's on me.


----------



## Gdaddy

Heck, they should even outlaw Snickers candy bars. Some people are allergic to the peanuts and wouldn't be fair to them if they are down wind. In Florida I'm surprised how many people who don't even ride motorcycles want those that do to wear a helmet. For their own good of course.

Thinking along those lines...there certainly should be a law against bungie jumping, mountain climbing, sky diving, and the *most dangerous of all*... horse back riding. Yikes!! Even though people have been riding horses for thousands of years it's proven time and time again that riding wild animals is unpredictable and dangerous as hell. In fact injuries occur on and OFF the horse. Horses should be outlawed or at least heavily taxed.

Rodeos are insane displays of stupidity of people riding not only horses but BULLS in an unthinkable manner. They first enrage the animals (cruelty to animals) by twisting their genitals with a rope and then they see how long they can hang on until they are flung into the air to their demise. Forget making a helmet law here...rodeos should immediately be banned and made a felony offense for any participation in such insane activity.

Even though I don't partake in any of these activities I know what's best for other people and they should do what I think is best.


----------



## SeanTheEvans

I hear it's unhealthy to not send $100 to Sean Evans.
Now all I need are some lobbyists to take up this cause and save the health of the nation.
All because I care about other people.


----------



## TCBSmokes

gtechva said:


> It is already illegal to sell tobacco products to kids. That just shows this is crap. A bunch of holier-than-thous wanting to tell me what vices, habits, hobbies I should have. Tobacco is the popular thing to be against. Every time they gain ground they can celebrate with a drink. But I'm not trying to outlaw their drink. The whole aspect of trying to decide which tobacco to regulate/out-law is also stupid. As has been said, if any tobacco needs to be outlawed, or regulated/taxed into extinction, then it all does. I don't care for mint flavored candy. Let's outlaw it because too much candy is bad for you. I do like Snickers candy bars. They have peanuts in them which makes them a health food and should be left alone. BS. If it's cigarettes today, it will be machine made cigars tomorrow, and the rest the next day. In the mean time, as someone else has commented, if $10 sticks are protected, d near all of them will cost $10. I personally can't afford those. So I will be out of luck but the more fortunate will still have their freedom. They don't want to go after everyone at once. Every individual thing they go after, will have some people won't care because it doesn't effect them. It might next time and it will eventually if it continues. It is not the government's job to protect me from me. I'm a big boy and I take responsibility for my decisions. It's not Krispy-Kreme and Duncan's fault I'm overweight. That's on me.


Well said. T.



Gdaddy said:


> Heck, they should even outlaw Snickers candy bars. Some people are allergic to the peanuts and wouldn't be fair to them if they are down wind. In Florida I'm surprised how many people who don't even ride motorcycles want those that do to wear a helmet. For their own good of course.
> 
> Thinking along those lines...there certainly should be a law against bungie jumping, mountain climbing, sky diving, and the *most dangerous of all*... horse back riding. Yikes!! Even though people have been riding horses for thousands of years it's proven time and time again that riding wild animals is unpredictable and dangerous as hell. In fact injuries occur on and OFF the horse. Horses should be outlawed or at least heavily taxed.
> 
> Rodeos are insane displays of stupidity of people riding not only horses but BULLS in an unthinkable manner. They first enrage the animals (cruelty to animals) by twisting their genitals with a rope and then they see how long they can hang on until they are flung into the air to their demise. Forget making a helmet law here...rodeos should immediately be banned and made a felony offense for any participation in such insane activity.
> 
> Even though I don't partake in any of these activities I know what's best for other people and they should do what I think is best.


Well said, too.

Both are examples of the bad precedent this is setting, because, while personal freedoms are being dismantled city by city, town by town, and the voting "majority" is taking smug satisfaction in their anti-smoking "accomplishments", they are unwittingly laying the groundwork for it being only a matter of time before they are the next minority group to be trounced upon, whatever that minority maybe.

And from the other end, you have the "squeaky wheel" zealots, the so-called "public interest" (.org not .gov) groups, who've deemed themselves the self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong for all of us. They are the ones talking, no, shouting, into the ears of lawmakers on a daily basis that their, and only their, agendas be heeded, and with a zero-tolerance policy for the opinions on the other side.

Supporting the CRA is good, and in addition, because it is a limited window of time, I think at this point an important thing to do is reply to the FDA individually and directly during their 75 day (now around 71?) open remarks period.


----------



## Stinky

Can I assume everyone here is a member of *CRA*?

. . . if not . . . why not?

I'd really like to know.


----------



## LewZephyr

Emperor Zurg said:


> *We have largely become a nation of self-absorbed idiots, morons and imbeciles these days.* I think if you could hit crtl+alt+del and set the thing up brand new tomorrow with everybody's involvement, we'd end up with a far worse government than we have now.
> [/politicalstuff]


Well said with much truth.


----------



## HardHeaded

I have seen some statistics posted here already showing how far off the limitations on "premium cigars" are based on the FDAs viewing of them. Perhaps we should organize as much information poking holes in their ideas as possible in the hopes of getting as many people as possible to comment directly to the FDA as they have requested.

I only suggest this because, by and large people are lazy. As soon as you expect them to have facts to support anything the portion of the population willing to participate drops dramatically. Probably as intended by this.

I intend to comment, and get the missus and a few others to comment regardless. Just a thought to help the cause.


----------



## Pj201

I was reading cigar Craig's blog and he posted a link to directly connect to make your comments to the proposed rule. I made my comments, and tweeted the link with messages out to my followers. Then I posted the tweet to my flip board magazine. I have 785 readers there, not one commented. It's a cigar mag, all of them burners. I dunno, it's very hard to get the humans to do more then talk. I'm at peace, I commented and tried to fire up some peeps. I'm a little afraid of what may happen. I will say that when there are few comments in government rule making sessions, they get what they want. I have in my profession over the years been involved in such matters. When the comments flow in, they know they need to reboot. When they don't its carte blanc.
:anim_soapbox:


----------



## Kasanova King

ShaneG said:


> So they are proposing marketing and regulations for all other tobacco products- ecigs, pipes, and cigars. They are considering a separate category for premium cigars which would be (see page 32)
> - long filler only
> - handmade
> - over 10$ (after discounts etc; not MSRP)
> - no tip or filter
> - weigh more than 6lbs per 1000
> - must have real leaf wrapper and binder
> 
> They are asking for the following inputs from the public regarding cigars (p34)
> 
> • Is this proposed definition of "covered cigar" appropriate to capture those products that, because of how they are used, may have less of a public health impact than other types of cigars?
> • Should long filler tobacco content be included as one of required elements of a "premium" cigar (excluded from the definition of a "covered cigar")? If so, what percentage of the tobacco contained in the cigar should be required to be long filler tobacco in order for the cigar to be considered "premium"?
> • Is it appropriate to include the $10 price point in differentiating "premium" cigars from other cigars? Please provide any data or information that supports the selection of a $10 price point or, if you believe a different price point is more appropriate, that supports the selection of that price point.
> • Should a volume/rate restriction (e.g., "is produced at a rate of no more than [insert number] units per minute") be included as one of required elements of a "premium" cigar (excluded from the definition of a "covered cigar")? If we were to include this restriction,
> what should the rate be? How would FDA determine compliance with such a restriction?
> • Is it appropriate to include the proposed weight restriction (6 pounds per 1000 units) in
> differentiating "premium" cigars from other cigars?
> • Would a different regulatory scheme for covered cigars, as defined here, or other category
> of cigars adequately address the dangers of tobacco use by adults or the proven dangers associated with use of cigars (such as increased risk of several cancers even among those users who do not inhale, and risk associated with lower levels of use as discussed in section VII)?
> • How should the fact that studies indicate that young adults likely prefer cigarillos, as opposed to traditional large cigars, affect FDA's decision about whether to regulate "premium" cigars?
> 
> And deciding wether to regulate or not these premium cigars


I didn't realize the $10 price point is after all discounts and promotions. So can we assume that the cigars that are typically $5-$10 smokes but can be bought for $2 - $4 with special promotions, etc. will be affected dramatically?

Will the manufacturers just raise the prices to most of them to $10 so they won't be regulated? Or will they just deal with the regulation and keep them where they're at?


----------



## Nature

Kasanova King said:


> I didn't realize the $10 price point is after all discounts and promotions. So can we assume that the cigars that are typically $5-$10 smokes but can be bought for $2 - $4 with special promotions, etc. will be affected dramatically?
> 
> Will the manufacturers just raise the prices to most of them to $10 so they won't be regulated? Or will they just deal with the regulation and keep them where they're at?


I don't want to deal with either scenario! That is why it is important for everyone to comment on this! This comment period is only open a few more weeks.


----------



## voiceoverguy

Nature said:


> I don't want to deal with either scenario! That is why it is important for everyone to comment on this! This comment period is only open a few more weeks.


Well said! It only takes a couple minutes, folks - And everything is basically written for you - There's no excuse for not letting your voice be heard on this one. This is something that directly affects every one of us on puff.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

Nature said:


> I don't want to deal with either scenario! That is why it is important for everyone to comment on this!* This comment period is only open a few more weeks*.


For those who read CA, you'll find that the editor's message is in regards to this in the latest issue.


----------



## beercritic

In a truely free country, one need not be reminded constantly how "free" they are. Yes, I sent my opinions to the FDA. Gonna stock up on pipe baccy, in case they move in on that, too


----------



## bigLuke5595

Every day we are taking another step closer to creating the USA as portrayed in "Escape from L.A." (if you haven't seen it, do so)


----------



## KaChong

One regulation that I think might be reasonable to put in place is to ban vaping on passenger flights. I enjoy nicotine and all, but I don't think it's fair to be exhaling e-cig vapor into a closed aircraft or public transit vehicles for that matter. I'm not usually a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" type, but I don't think children or non smokers should have to put up with nicotine vapor. I was on a flight and was stuck in the same row with a guy vaping quite a lot. He picked some godaweful juice that made him smell like an automatic Febreeze machine run amok. I tried asking some of the flight attendants to put an end to it, but they weren't clear on policy on the matter. I asked him to stop, but he was a huge Russian dude accompanied by two other big guys. I didn't think I'd survive a fist fight.


----------

